Talk:Hook, Hart

The user who has made these additions has done a good job in doing so. However i think the picture of the horse is slightly inneccessaryChombawomba 14:55, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

This picture has been removed. Hut 8.5 12:44, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Town?

I don't think you can just claim hook to be a town through the growth. I remember a time when peple used the term 'mini-town' but I'm sure it was still officially a village.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.18.230.221 (talk • contribs)

I've changed it to 'large village' as that's what the Parish Council call it. Hut 8.5 19:13, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Town?

There are still a few references to Hook being a town dotted through the page.

I've changed the ones I could find. If I missed one, then change it yourself - be bold! Hut 8.5 18:23, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Legends

Please reframe from deleting other peoples work that is relevant to the page. This is in relation to the Legends section. Many people would be interested to know legends of the area they live in, or are to visit. Thank you.

That is irrelevant. The experiences are not well cited and don't seem notable enough for inclusion. Hut 8.5 19:47, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I might find some of the historic content as irrelevant, however I understand that it might be of interest to other readers. I added sources to one UFO encounter mentioned, but the link was removed. Faedenuk

By 'irrelevant' I mean that the point of 'people might like to know this' is irrelevant. Wikipedia can only document things which are verifiable. As the legends aren't verifiable, by definition, they can only be included if they are notable. The link you added is not a reliable source, as anyone can send things in to the website - how do we know they aren't making it up? If you can find a reliable published work covering the legends, then they can be included. Hut 8.5 20:31, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

So if it were up to your logic, anything mentioned on Wikipedia that associates with the supernatural or paranormal or unexplained should be dismissed and not added, because it doesn’t have a reliable source? Then that would mean all pages on religion should also be deleted or dismissed too, being none of them have been proven, or have reliable sources. I never stated that the supernatural or paranormal aspect to the stories were real happenings, if I had stated that you might have had a case. The very definition of a legend, its based on myth, however these people did claim these events to happen, and it was reported in the local media. The fact that it cant be proven as a genuine paranormal experience is what makes it a legend, so the stories DO fit into the definition of legend perfectly, and should not be removed.

You really should not delete things just based only on your own beliefs. You might think these things are silly and hokum, but clearly some people don’t share that opinion and you should respect that, and Wikipedia is for all people.

If you want, I can put up information on these stories from more than one source, proving the legends are known by more than just a few or one person(s). Faedenuk

Religious or paranormal information can be included if reliable sources have commented on it (Roswell UFO incident, for example, has plenty of sources). Whether or not something is true is not the issue here, it's whether enough sources have commented on it for it to merit inclusion in an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. The external link you added does not meet our reliable source requirements, as anyone can post to that website. Hut 8.5 17:51, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I have added references. Please stop deleting my work and dictating what should and should not be up, based on your own opinion of what is real or what is not, I have not deleted anyone else work. Faedenuk

This is supposed to be a page about Hook, there are places in wiki for speculative material on the paranormal, but not on a factual page about a place which is not and never has been strongly associated with these purported 'legends'. There is plenty of factual material too trivial to show on a page about Hook without inserting dubious material about things 'it is said' somebody thinks they might have seen. Please stop replacing work that is irrelevent to the majority of people looking for information about Hook Mighty Antar 00:04, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Myths and Legends in the village of Hook Hampshire IS relevant to Hook in Hampshire. Hazevaga.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hook, Hart. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060410142324/http://www.hook-inf.hants.sch.uk/ to http://www.hook-inf.hants.sch.uk/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:19, 6 November 2017 (UTC)